§Why CasetextPricing

Anderson et al v. The Boeing Company

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

51 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,866 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,014 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 16,006 times   500 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

  4. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

    535 U.S. 391 (2002)   Cited 1,066 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable accommodation" in ADA means more than just effective accommodation

  5. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.

    302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 2,148 times
    Holding that pro se plaintiff's good faith mistake of law amounted to mere inadvertence, and did not warrant relief from an untimely jury demand

  6. Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S.

    636 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 881 times

    No. 09-36109. Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010. Filed March 3, 2011. Alan I. Horowitz, Steven R. Dixon, and Maria O'Toole Jones, Miller Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., Thomas D. Johnston, Shearman Sterling, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellant. Arthur Thomas Catterall, Henry C. Darmstadter, David N. Geier, Teresa E. McLaughlin, and James E. Weaver, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Helen J. Brunner, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellee

  7. Taylor v. Phoenixville School District

    184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,193 times
    Holding thinking is a major life activity

  8. E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 499 times
    Holding district court erred in granting summary judgment to employer in finding plaintiff caused the breakdown in the interactive process

  9. Brady v. Wal-Mart

    531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 447 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 50(b) judgment contrary to jury verdict appropriate only "if there exists such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded persons could not arrive at a verdict against it" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)

  10. Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n

    239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 561 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employer had a duty to accommodate employee with obsessive compulsive disorder, which interfered with her ability to get to work on time, or at all, but did not affect her ability to function effectively as a medical transcriptionist

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,220 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 12101 - Findings and purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 12101   Cited 23,266 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Finding a pattern of " unnecessary discrimination and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity"

  13. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,033 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  14. Section 1630.2 - Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 8,320 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"

  15. Section 162-22-075 - Undue hardship exception

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-075   Cited 8 times

    An employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person must provide reasonable accommodation unless it can prove that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. An accommodation will be considered an undue hardship if the cost or difficulty is unreasonable in view of: (1) The size of and the resources available to the employer; (2) Whether the cost can be included in planned remodeling or maintenance; and (3) The requirements of other laws and contracts, and other appropriate considerations

  16. Section 162-22-025 - Unfair practice

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-025   Cited 7 times

    It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to: (1) Refuse to hire, discharge, bar from employment, or otherwise discriminate against an able worker with a disability or because of the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability; or (2) Fail or refuse to make reasonable accommodation for an able worker with a disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability, unless

  17. Section 162-22-065 - Reasonable accommodation

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-065   Cited 7 times
    Adjusting work schedule is an example of a reasonable accommodation